Using a network TV show as the measuring stick is a little silly. That's like saying the only chefs who make a living out of it are the ones that make it to Chopped or Top Chef.
There are plenty of singers that work with bands, operas, theater companies, studios, schools, as performers, as songwriters, as backing singers and on and on. The living they make is every bit similar to the living made by a guy that owns a pest control company or a woman that owns a small bookkeeping firm.
> That's like saying the only chefs who make a living out of it are the ones that make it to Chopped or Top Chef.
Thanks for that comparison! With Top Chefs, most of them make a living as a chef or cook. With The Voice, most of them don't (not even as backing vocals). Why is that you think? To make a living as a chef or cook, you need to be in the top 90%. To make a living singing (even as backing vocals), you need to be in the top 0.1%.
ALL of the chefs on Top Chef are professionals. All of them. That's the point of the show.
NONE of the singers on the Voice are professionals. That's also the point of the show.
The bigger point that clearly wasn't understood is that celebrity and success aren't mutually inclusive when it comes to cooking or music. You can be a successful chef that isn't on Top Chef just as you can be a successful voice that never goes on American Idol. In fact MOST people successful in both realms will never ever be on even a local TV show.
You're right. I don't understand your point so I can't agree or disagree with it.
I think you were suggesting that only the top .1% of singers who want to make a living singing actually do. But the top 90% of chefs who want to make a living being chefs actually do. If that is the point then I completely disagree.
Just look at the tv show 'the voice' and look at how many contestants they start with, and how many end up making a living out of it.
The number of people with businesses are not expressed with "thousands".